Posted on May 21, 2013 by Paul Mirengoff in Immigration, Obama Administration Scandals

The common thread in the Obama adminstration scandals

John Yoo identifies the common thread in the major Obama administration scandals:

Add up all the recent scandals and the message is clear: the Obama administration is showing that it cannot be trusted with the basic functions of government: law enforcement (surveillance of reporters), taxation (IRS scandals), and national security (Benghazi).

How, then, can we trust the administration when it comes to immigration — an area in which it already has refused to enforce portions of the law that it doesn’t like?

Posted on by John Hinderaker in Fast and Furious, Media, Obama Administration Scandals

A New Front in the Administration’s War on Journalism?

The two most honest and independent reporters in Washington are, I think, Jake Tapper, now of CNN, and CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson. I’m probably forgetting someone, but those are the two that come to mind. Ms. Attkisson reported on Fast and Furious more fearlessly and effectively than any other reporter. Today she disclosed that her personal and work computers have been “compromised.” The circumstances are being investigated:

“I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter,” Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. “I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public.”

In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, “there could be some relationship between these things and what’s happened to James [Rosen],” the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009. …

Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration’s green energy spending, which she said “the administration was very sensitive about.” Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year’s attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.

Was the administration angry at Attkisson for failing to keep Fast and Furious secret? Recall this post from October 2011:

Laura Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you?

Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House. …

[The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I’m the only reporter–as they told me–that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.

There is, of course, a fundamental difference between Ms. Attkisson’s circumstances and those of James Rosen. In Rosen’s case, the administration could argue that it was investigating a leak that was criminal under the Espionage Act because it threatened national security. I don’t see how any similar claim could be made in regard to Fast and Furious, even if Ms. Attkisson’s reporting was based to some degree on leaks, which I do not now recall.

Posted on by John Hinderaker in Taxes

Rand Paul Stands Up Against Government Greed

The Senate Subcommittee on Investigations is holding a hearing this morning on Apple’s tax avoidance strategies. Rand Paul set the ringmasters back on their heels with an opening statement that questioned the whole rationale for the hearing. Here is Paul’s opening statement:

For those who lack the patience to watch it (that often describes me when it comes to videos), here is the transcript, supplied by Paul’s office:

I am offended by the tone and tenor of this hearing. I am offended by a $4 trillion government bullying, berating and badgering one of America’s greatest success stories.

Tell me one of these politicians up here that doesn’t minimize their taxes. Tell me a chief financial officer that you would hire if he didn’t try to minimize your taxes legally. Tell me what Apple has done that is illegal.

I am offended by a government that uses the IRS to bully groups such as the Tea Party but I am also offended by a government that convenes a hearing to bully one of American’s success stories.

I am offended by the spectacle of dragging in here executives from an American company that is not doing anything illegal. If anyone should be on trial here, it should be Congress.

I frankly think the Committee should apologize to Apple. I frankly think Congress should be on trial here for creating a bizarre and byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages, for creating a tax code that simply doesn’t compete with the rest of the world.

This committee will admit: Apple has not broken any laws. Yet, they are forced into a show trial at the whims of politicians, when in fact; Congress should be on trial for chasing the profits of great American companies overseas. You haul before this committee one of America’s greatest success stories and you want applause?

I say, instead of Apple executives, you should have brought in a giant mirror, so we could look at the reflection of Congress because this problem is solely and completely created by the awful tax code.

If you want to assign blame, the Committee needs to look in the mirror and see who created this mess, see who created the tax code that drives American companies overseas.

Our corporate tax is more than double Canada’s. I never thought I would be complimenting Canada’s tax code – our tax code is double Canada’s. Our corporate tax is over ten points higher than Europe. Instead of saying theirs is too low, why don’t we set about to work that ours is too high.

Apple has 600,000 jobs they’ve created, American jobs and we want to drag them before this committee to chastise them. I find it abominable. Just in my state, we have $700 million in sales from Dow Corning. They make Gorilla Glass.

They were virtually out of business. In the 1990s, Apple struggled – if I had to guess, unfortunately, I didn’t guess enough to invest in Apple, but the thing is that in the ‘90s, people were worried they might go out of business. You know they had one computer that wasn’t doing well and then all of a sudden the innovation that came about. And we want to bring them forward and chastise them for their success.

A couple years, we did repatriation of foreign capital. If we want the capital to come home, don’t double tax it. We tax it 35 percent. Let’s tax it at 5 percent.

I have a bill that would repatriate profits from foreign companies at 5 percent and put it into infrastructure. Our country is woefully short of money for infrastructure. But you’re not going to get it at 35 percent— you are getting zero. Let’s make it 5 percent and create and infrastructure fund.

There are probably 70 votes for that in Congress but nobody will bring it up. Why? They say, “Oh, it’s the sweetener for overall tax reform, which is illusive and a hill too tall to climb that it never seems to get here.”

Why not tomorrow pass it? Why do you think people are frustrated with Congress? Because we don’t do the right thing. Everybody admits, even those that want to drag Apple before this committee, they admit that the tax code is our problem.

But if we had repatriation at 5 percent, then they would bring money home. Why don’t we just pass it? Instead it has to be revenue neutral, scored by the CBO – just pass it if it’s the right thing to do.

I would say what we really need to do is to apologize to Apple, compliment them for the job creation they are doing, and get about doing our job.

Look in the mirror and let’s make the tax code better, fairer, and more competitive world-wide. Money goes where it is welcome and currently our tax code makes money not welcome in our country.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Later on, when it came to his turn, Sen. Paul delivered an oration that I thought was even better; I will put it up later, if possible. The leaders of the lynch party, Carl Levin and John McCain, felt obliged to say that they are not vilifying Apple but are merely trying to shed light on the workings of the tax code. McCain delivered a rather sickening paean to Levin, and Claire McCaskill thanked him effusively for his bipartisanship.

I was never much of a fan of Ron Paul, to put it mildly, and I initially viewed his son with some skepticism. But it won’t take many performances like today’s to make me one of Rand Paul’s biggest fans.

Tim Cook is testifying now. He points out that Apple is the largest corporate taxpayer in the U.S., having paid $6 billion in income taxes last year. He concludes his opening statement with a rather impassioned plea for tax reform.

UPDATE: Ron Johnson and Kelly Ayotte are also doing an excellent job. Basically the hearing is turning into a teaching opportunity for Apple’s executives–now what Carl Levin had in mind.

Here is Senator Paul questioning a tax professor; this is what I referred to earlier:

UPDATE: Carl Levin tried to salvage the situation by going on an endless, repetitive soliloquy in which he misstated the facts relating to Apple’s overseas operations and didn’t give the Apple executives an opportunity to correct him. He then declared the panel at an end. That is the advantage, I guess, of being the committee chairman.

Posted on by Scott Johnson in jurisprudence, Minnesota, Political correctness, Supreme Court

Live from the Upper Midwest Employment Law Institute

At the moment I am listening to the ostentatiously liberal Judge Mark Bennett of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa summarize the Supreme Court’s employment law decisions of the past year. Judge Bennett wants us to know that he has got his mind right (i.e., left), and how. I understood that from his disparagement of the conservative Supreme Court justices as “the usual suspects.” That was enough for me, but then he added facetious praise of Chief Justice Roberts for the “craftspersonship” of his opinions, a purported word I am grateful never to have heard before this morning.

Continuing legal education is a multifaceted thing. I’m wondering if I can claim elimination-of-bias credit (I need two hours to satisfy the requirement imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court) for meditating on Judge Bennett’s mind-numbingly gender-neutral vocabulary.

Posted on by Steven Hayward in Climate

Waiting for a Tornado of Speculation

The news broadcasts of the Oklahoma tornado disaster that I saw last night and this morning were thankfully free of speculation that this tornado is proof of—wait for it—global warming, and therefore one more reason to hand over control of our energy sector to environmentalists.  I am certain this will come from the usual people starting today, but for now, note the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin discounting the thesis:

I’ll add a final thought about the persistent discussion of the role of greenhouse-driven climate change in violent weather in Tornado Alley.

It’s an important research question but, to me, has no bearing at all on the situation in the Midwest and South — whether there’s a tornado outbreak or drought. The forces putting people in harm’s way are demographic, economic, behavioral and architectural. Any influence of climate change on dangerous tornadoes (so far the data point to a moderating influence) is, at best, marginally relevant and, at worst, a distraction.

Meanwhile, Stephen Goddard points out that back in 1975, Newsweek (remember them?) blamed an outbreak of tornados on . . . global cooling:

Love how scientists are “almost unanimous” in their assessments of the effects of global cooling.  Sounds almost like a “consensus.”  You can download a complete facsimilie of the whole 1975 Newsweek story here.

Posted on by Paul Mirengoff in Immigration

Will Team Amnesty prevail?

While attention is focused on various Obama administration scandals, the Schumer-Rubio immigration reform legislation keeps chugging along in the Senate. What are the prospects for enacting this law, or some similar version?

I believe the Senate is likely to pass Schumer-Rubio. All or nearly all of the Senate Democrats will vote for it. That’s 55 votes or close to it.

The four Republican members of the Gang of Eight – Rubio, McCain, Graham, and Flake – can be expected to vote for their handiwork. That’s 59 votes or close to it.

Thus, only a small handful of other Republican votes will be required to invoke cloture. With big business backing amnesty so lustily, it’s likely that those votes can be found.

The Gang has said it is hoping for 70 yes votes, or thereabouts, so as to generate “momentum”” in the House. I doubt that Schumer-Rubio will get 70 votes. Mickey Kaus suggests that without 70, it will be difficult to get 60 because no Republican will want to be identifiable as having cast the vote that pushes amnesty over the top.

Kaus may be right. But a small number of Republican “yes” votes is not a tall order from a group as squishy as Senate Republicans.

As for the House, several sources have told me that the leadership is unlikely to bring up the massive Senate bill as such. Instead, pieces of it will be presented for vote, beginning presumably with provisions such as those calling for better enforcement.

This approach will present a dilemma for House Democrats. Like their Senate counterparts, they oppose enhanced enforcement unaccompanied by amnesty, a path to citizenship, and other goodies. But they will not want to vote against enforcement for fear of the political consequences.

I imagine that the Democrats will vote for stand-alone provisions such as those pertaining to enforcement. If amnesty/path for citizenship passes the House later on, then the Dems will be in business. If not, Senate Democrats will make sure that the stand-alone enforcement provisions aren’t enacted.

In any scenario, though, House Republicans should be able to pass a series of relatively non-controversial immigration reform provisions.

But what will happen with amnesty/path to citizenship?

The first question is whether the leadership will permit a vote on this. As I understand it, the leadership ordinarily will not permit a vote on any provision that doesn’t enjoy majority support within the Republican caucus. Amnesty/path to citizenship will fail this test, I’m confident.

But the leadership might bring it up anyway. We shouldn’t underestimate the influence that can be exerted on House leadership by the important portions of the Republican establishment – most notably business interests – that favor amnesty/path to citizenship.

If amnesty/path to citizenship comes up for a vote in the House, I would expect virtually unanimous Democratic support. That’s 201 votes or close to it. Thus, with 20 or slightly fewer Republican votes, the House could pass amnesty/path to citizenship.

Could those votes be found? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t bet against it.

The key, I think, is the extent to which conservatives raise their voices against amnesty/path to citizenship. We can’t count on the Republican establishment; we can’t count on Fox News; and we certainly can’t count on the business community. Moreover, the financial mismatch between pro-amnesty and anti-amnesty Republicans is shocking.

I believe that only a massive outpouring of conservative opposition, such as we witnessed in 2007, will stop the amnesty express this time. Without such an outpouring, I think it’s more likely than not that the House leadership will permit a vote on amnesty/path to citizenship, and more likely than not that such a measure will pass the House.

I understand the fixation on Obama administration scandals. But I also understand that 20 years from now, nearly everyone will have forgotten them. By contrast, 20 years from now Schumer-Rubio, if enacted, will be having a massive impact on America.

Posted on by Scott Johnson in Liberals, Media, Obama Administration Scandals

In search of an honest liberal journalist

Having lived through the Watergate scandal and the impeachment of President Nixon, I recall that one conservative journalist stood out from the pack. As the Washington columnist for National Review, George Will regularly exposed the Nixon administration’s lines of defense as the lies that they were. He distinguished himself both for his merciless analytical rigor and his skills as an anatomist.

Will was in the infancy of his now long and distinguished journalistic career. He had joined National Review in 1972, just in time take a front row seat from the beginning of the scandal. By 1973 he was devoting every one of his biweekly NR Washington columns to a dissection of the administration’s evolving “hangouts,” limited, modified or otherwise.

Readers of National Review did not take kindly to Will’s treachery, as they saw it. In one of his books (I think, but which one?), William Buckley writes about the torrent of criticism that Will’s work aroused among National Review’s subscribers. It can’t have been a pleasant experience, either for Buckley the editor or Will the columnist. Yet Buckley stood behind him and Will went from strength to strength, beginning his syndicated column and, within a few years, winning a Pulitzer Prize for commentary.

George Will’s intellect made him one of a kind in the profession, but is there a liberal columnist who can serve Will’s role in the current crisis of the Obama administration? Asking the question suggests that events support a parallel between Nixon and Obama, and I don’t exactly mean to do that. Something, however, is rotten in the Obama administration. The problem is that the political rot overlaps with leftist goals. I doubt that a liberal critic can rise to the challenge presented by Obama and his, if not the journalist’s, friends.

I’ve had the thought that Kirsten Powers might be the liberal counterpart to the conservative George Will of 1973. Powers would have it easier than Will did. In mid-career, she is already a star, and calling out the Obama administration might even serve to enhance her career.

I have the feeling she will let me down before long, but in the meantime, here is to Kirsten Powers and “How hope and change gave way to spying on the press.” Ms. Powers, you might even want to follow up with a look at the administration’s incredibly destructive national security leaks — leaks regarding the Stuxnet virus and the Seal Team 6 raid that killed bin Laden, to take two examples offered by Victor Davis Hanson — in the service of its transient political goals.

UPDATE: As I think about it, I am almost certain that I was recalling Jeffrey Hart’s account of Will’s tenure at NR in his terrific personal history of the magazine, The Making of the American Conservative Mind. I will have to return to this subject when I have my copy of Professor Hart’s book in hand.